Every person walks into a relationship with her/his own life experiences. No one enters into someone’s life for no reason. Its reasons may be invisible to us but there are some purposes in our social engagements. One benefit of social engagement is to develop our own principles/ethics in life. We learn about our own personal and relational ethics/principles when we enter into life experiences of others. The richness of our life depends on the quality of relationships we are in. Relationships have significant influences on who we are and how we are with the Other.

Buber (1979) differentiates relationships focusing on the Other as “Thou” from those viewing the Other as ‘It”. Those of us caught in the pattern of “I–It” relationship connect with the Other as an object. The Other as ‘It’ becomes a means to our own personal ends. The “I” is driven/directed by his/her own egocentric needs. The Other is set at a distance and the “I” don’t attempt to experience the Other’s side. The Other is absent as a person, as a being, in the relationship. The Other is a means to an end rather than being a partner in dialogue. The “I-It” relationship is monological and subjective rather than dialogical and inter-human.

In an “I- Thou” relationship, unlike “I – It”, a person turns toward the Other and confirms his or her being. The “I- Thou” relationship is characterized by “mutuality, directness, present-ness, intensity, and ineffability” (Friedman, 1960).

Relationships collapse when people are trapped in an “I-It” relationship. “I- It” relationship doesn’t have the capacity to last and fulfill relational needs of parties. In the “I- It” engagement, we constantly search for another “It” to bring us joy and happiness; nothing seems to be enough. Treating and viewing the Other as “It” is a recipe for disaster which closes down potential venues to personal and relational growth. The only way out is our awareness to search for ways of reconnecting to our principles/ethics to re-connect with the Other in a new way.

We are able to transform an “I-It’ encounter to an “I-Thou” relationship. What makes it possible lies in our ability to revise our ethics in the relationship; to become responsible to the Other. This is the only way to identification and reconstruction of our personal and relational ethics. This is a gateway to experiencing ourselves as “relational beings” (Gergen 2009). When we enter into the “I- Thou” relationship, we become part of an open ever-evolving process. There is no endpoint or a tangible goal. We become multi-dimensional and, then, larger than life.

Think about relationships that you are in. When thinking of the quality of your relationship with the Other person, how do you describe the Other person? Has the Other person become an “It” or “Thou”? There is a direct link between your problems in the relationship and you viewing the Other as “It”. Review your ethics and redraw the definition of your relationship with the Other. When doing so, you would be amazed to see what becomes possible to you.

Inside Out is a funny, witty, and clever movie portraying the role of human emotions in a very touching sensible story. The story is about a life of a girl who is facing a significant transition in her life.

“Riley (Kaitlyn Dias) is a happy, hockey-loving 11-year-old Midwestern girl, but her world turns upside-down when she and her parents move to San Francisco. Riley’s emotions — led by Joy (Amy Poehler) — try to guide her through this difficult, life-changing event. However, the stress of the move brings Sadness (Phyllis Smith) to the forefront. When Joy and Sadness are inadvertently swept into the far reaches of Riley’s mind, the only emotions left in Headquarters are Anger, Fear, and Disgust”.

The core emotions of human beings are Joy, Sadness, Anger, Fear, and Disgust. These emotions are learned emotions; these emotions exhibit themselves in one’s life based on one’s experiences and learning in relationships. The emotions, in this movie, are beautifully externalized. Emotions act independently and co-dependently with other emotions. Emotions are triggered/ activated due to a major change in one’s life. The interactions between emotions are utterly amusing and amazingly constructed.

In a process of helping a person regain her/his well-being, emotions play a big role. Emotions are expressions of life. What one learns through social interactions is translated to the formation of various forms of emotions. One’s relational learning has gradually become associated with specific emotions which get expressed in daily interactions with others and ourselves.

Inside Out is not only about Riley’s journey of adaptation with a new life, it is also about collaborative work of emotions. In this journey, the core emotions learn new things about each other, they learn the necessity and usefulness of each in one’s life. They learn to work together to respond to particular situations more positively.

The moment that Joy learns Sadness has usefulness is priceless. The moment that Anger, Fear and Disgust have to run Riley’s headquarters is superb as they have to compensate for other emotions such as Joy and Sadness.

The screen players of Inside Out have done a great job in the characterization of the core emotions. Throughout the movie, these messages are implicitly echoed: the core emotions are trainable; they are constructed in a specific context; they are changeable; they are flexible and playful; they are interchangeable; they are responses to specific conditions in life. No emotion is fixed.

It is a very optimistic movie as it shows us to work with our own emotions and regulate/train/tame them in creative ways that make us re-connected with self and others.

If the goal of one’s life is to re-bounce from disconnection and if it is to re-connect with self and others, this movie illustrates this perfectly. I wonder if this movie is shown at schools and I could just imagine what effects it would have on children and perhaps their parents.

Happy to see Pete Docter and his crew brought this invisible and covert subject to life in this great animation movie! If you haven’t seen it, it is highly recommended.

The movie, LUCY, is a masterpiece; it portrays human as the powerful species. LUCY is an embodiment of a modernism; a dream/ idea about an intelligent victorious man conquering others, time and space. It is about what Nietzsche said ‘God is Dead’. LUCY is about knowledge as a source of power and control.

The age of modernism is over and LUCY gets to its 100% presence and disappears. The age of modernism gets to its full potential and eventually destroys itself; it leaves us its achievements and disappears. The time for a rigid, logical/ rational insensible thinking is coming to an end.

LUCY is about the rise and fall of logical/ rational/ intellectual mind that controls others, information, time and space. It is true that human without brain are not human but the exhaustion of human intelligence and exaggerated use of power and control will have led us to destruction of human species, environment and morality.

In the movie, the main two engines/ motives for human species to survive are: a) immortality b) reproduction. In the history of mankind, human have swung between these two. In modern era, the force to increase immortality was intensified/heightened and consequently, the reproduction rate became decreased. We are at the end of this era.

We are going to swing back and forth to find equilibrium. This will not be achieved when power and control run the mind of human beings. Equilibrium is achieved when power and knowledge are shared and interpreted relationally.

Yes, LUCY is a great example of what Michelle Foucault predicted. Yes, we have become LUCY. Yes, it is in all of us who were born into the rigid, logical, and rational world of modernism; it is in all of us who perpetuated modern thinking and implemented it in others’ lives and ours. Yes, LUCY is everywhere; LUCY is in all of us!

When I was leaving the theater, there were a young couple sat in their chairs looking puzzled. They said that they didn’t understand LUCY and they weren’t sure what LUCY was all about. Now, reflecting back on the young couple’s words, I have more appreciation for them.

It seems our new generations ask questions and scrutinize the presence of power and control in human interactions. The answer is new generations that question the achievements of technology, that look with suspicious upon greed, knowledge, and power. Their questions will bring the lost equilibrium back to life.

Yes, equilibrium will make us human, again, connected and engaged with each other relationally and ethically. Equilibrium will allow all paradoxical pieces of understanding to co-exist; it will put an end to use of personal/social/technical/intellectual power over/against each other. Equilibrium will connect us not rationally but relationally.

I saw Philomena the other day. Like you, I enjoyed the depth of emotions presented in the movie. Such a fresh great story. If you haven’t seen this movie, it is highly recommended!

As I was watching it, many questions were developing in my mind. Questions like these: Why did she decide to forgive the church? What contributed to her ability to forgive? Did her personal religious beliefs make the forgiveness possible to her? Did her son’s political positions influence her decision to forgive? What made her have a strong determination not to be like those who practice ‘anger’? Does she see forgiveness a response/solution to conflicts?…

As i was overwhelmed by these questions, the placement of the journalist – Martin Sixsmith- became more visible to me. He wasn’t an average Joe; he was a journalist, a so-called expert investigating a story about a lost child. Martin’s particular position got my attention; he was actively participating in unpacking and unfolding the untold well-kept story.

Questions were pouring to my consciousness; for instance, what is his role in re- storing Philomena’s experience? He was invited to help with investigation but there was no explicit or implicit permission given to him to take on the job alone; as It was very clear throughout the movie. How did he restrain himself not to go beyond what Philomena asked? If he was given permission to take on the leading role in retelling the story, could he add his own views, attitudes towards Church in this story? Could he influence the process of storytelling? What stopped him from not intruding and re-authoring Philomena’s story for Philomena?

I was amazed and pleased with the way he was positioned in this movie. He followed ethics that have been overlooked in our professional world! What he did could be called as ‘relational ethics’ in storytelling.

The way we, helping professionals , conduct ourselves, regulate our emotions, and hold on to our beliefs is critical to how stories are narrated and re-told. We, as a witness to people’s stories, need to be mindful of our responsibilities to those who consult with us. We need to be reminded of not adding our own resentment, anger or assumptions to their stories. We need to constantly re-pace ourselves to be in sync with our clients, not oppress their voices and not re-write their experiences of hardship and trauma. We need to be cognizant of putting pieces of stories into its own contexts, time and place and not evaluate them according to our today’s standards. These actions are what i call as ‘relational ethics’.

I believe having ‘relational ethics’ allows us to prevent conflicts from reshaping our life. ‘Relational Ethics’ allows us to be able to develop close deep understanding of the past events. It supports stories to remain fresh, effective, alive and influential throughout the human history!

Lately I have been thinking of what makes a conversation easier between two people. I came to realize that if people don’t meet each other in a shared emotional intersection, they might not be able to be present to one another. What makes two people present to each other is crucial in conversation. People need to be in a same/similar/familiar emotional space to be able to talk to one another in a more effective and understanding way.

Practice of ‘Check- In’ would bring people together to experience emotional connection. It would invite people to join in a shared emotional space. Practice of ‘Check- In’ is a practice of self-disclosure; it is a practice that allows the other person to get to know one’s emotional space; it is an invitation to inform others about one’s state of mind and emotions. People become more in tune with each other’s particular emotional mental and relational states. People experience connecting with one another in a more leveled equal and transparent way.

Practice of ‘Check- In’ also provides an opportunity to join in having dialogues to address much broader issues such as organizational social and political matters. This practice would allow people to defuse visible and invisible conflicts and become more aware of each other’s vulnerabilities.

Have you tried the practice ‘Check-in’ in your conversations with your friends, family members or employees?